So take Catholics not wanting to support abortion for moral reasons as an example. If they don't want their money going to Planned Parenthood, then I think it's wrong to use the government to force them into it.

As Theodoric already informed you, no federal money is used to fund abortions. That is explicitly against the law. Planned Parenthood does not use any federal money for abortions.

Planned Parenthood provides many more vitally needed services. Oh, I'm sure that Catholics will object to the contraceptives, though non-Catholics still shake their heads in utter disbelief at that. Do they also object to preventing the spread of HIV? I saw an article about a Planned Parenthood clinic that had to close and the HIV rates in that area rose very sharply. Planned Parenthood also provides health services for women, many of whom cannot get care elsewhere. Are Catholics against women's health? I never realized how anti-life Catholics are.

I think you should look into what Planned Parenthood actually does.

As for not wanting your tax dollars going to something you don't like, is there a mechanism to prevent that? Many people want their tax dollars to go to things that you don't like, so is there a mechanism to allow that? No, there isn't.

In rabbinic literature, the Pirke Avoth ("Sayings of the Father" -- you heard a number of them in Yentl), there are several sayings in which the four combinations of the two states of two traits are examined (similar to Pascal's infamous wager (also see my examination of its use in fundamentalist proselytizing as "after-life insurance").

The one that comes to mind is the one about the four kinds of charity. Either the donor knows who the recipient is or he does not. Either the recipient knows who the donor is or he does not. One example was a Jew who walked through the city with his hood down and filled with money such that anyone could take some money out without his knowledge; that would be an example of the recipient knowing who the donor is, but the donor not knowing the recipient. The one where neither recipient nor donor knows the other is where the donor places his money somewhere and the recipient comes to get it. That way is considered to be true charity, since the donor does not expect praise from the recipients -- negative example: Donald Trump's boast of having made a donation to veterans which he never made until public scrutiny forced him to actually make that donation; he expected the reward of praise while trying to minimize his actual payment.

Now, aren't we talking about that best of the four forms of charity? We all donate to a common fund out of which those in need can benefit. Whose dollars actually go to Planned Parenthood? Once your money is in that common fund, can you point to an individual dollar and identify it as being from you?

OK, if you are not satisfied with Jewish wisdom and charity (which is unsurpassed) ... . What is your solution? Some system to earmark every dollar of your federal taxes as to where it must go? Such a system does not exist and, were it to exist, would be unmanageable as well as extremely ineffective. Get rid of recipients that you do not approve of, even though I and many others do approve of them and consider them very necessary for the common good. And if we can itemize where we want our tax dollars to go, what happens when one program is heavily over-funded while many very necessary programs are underfunded (the vast majority of which nobody has ever heard of) and vast unallocated money just lies there impossible to use? Inefficient, impractical, and utterly useless.

So what's the solution? Nu?

PS

Just to stave off a possible argument for faith-based charities to take up that slack.

I have an atheist friend and fellow veteran (same service even, USAF, though I went Navy in the reserves) through a local skeptics meet-up. He was homeless for a few years. Now, he grew up atheist -- his parents were of extremely different religious backgrounds so they let their children follow their own religious paths -- and remains so. While homeless he encountered a number of charities reaching out to the homeless. Many of them were faith-based. The faith-based facilities expected you to engage in their religious practices; if you fought that pressure too much, you ended up back on the street. His path off the streets was to volunteer to work for these services, which eventually led to being hired as staff once he had proved his worth (before becoming homeless, he had managed a cinema multiplex very well). He was especially good at working with homeless veterans because he understood where they were at and how they thought. But they fired him solely because his religion wasn't right. Now he's working with a non-religious organization providing the same service for our homeless veterans.

Going back to that Pirke Avoth matrix of charity, in the situation of religiously based charities, both the donors and the recipients know each other's identity and compliance to the donor's religion is a requirement to receive the charity (especially when it's a Christian "charity").

So then, let's go for the option of taking the government completely out of the picture and let private charities take care of all society's woes. First of all, they can't handle the load. Second, they reject those who will not conform to their religious requirements. So what happens to the rest?

That is what happens when the donors and recipients know each other. Clearly we need the system where neither knows the other, which the rabbis already knew was the best form of charity.

So take Catholics not wanting to support abortion for moral reasons as an example. If they don't want their money going to Planned Parenthood, then I think it's wrong to use the government to force them into it.

As Theodoric already informed you, no federal money is used to fund abortions. That is explicitly against the law. Planned Parenthood does not use any federal money for abortions.

As for not wanting your tax dollars going to something you don't like, is there a mechanism to prevent that? Many people want their tax dollars to go to things that you don't like, so is there a mechanism to allow that? No, there isn't.

IF I could pick and choose where my portion of the US tax income went, I would defund the military -- that would save more lives than banning Planned Parenthood (which will cause deaths not save them).

As Theodoric already informed you, no federal money is used to fund abortions. That is explicitly against the law. Planned Parenthood does not use any federal money for abortions.

That's beside the point, they don't have to use federal money directly on abortions in order for someone to not want to support them.

Planned Parenthood provides many more vitally needed services.

Sure, but it doesn't matter. The point still stands: Using the government on people against their will to force them to your will can be immoral.

When people aren't being charitible to the things that you would like them to be charitable to, then using the government to divert their tax money into supporting things that they want to not support is you forcing them to do something against their will because of your own preferences.

That's not how win people over to your side. Maybe I got this whole thread wrong, but it looked like it was trying convince people that welfare is a good thing that they should support.

Calling out "myths" is nonproductive, nobody cares. Calling people pathological is just going to turn people away. And simply using the government to force them into participating will get the job done, temporarily, but if people haven't been won over to your side then it can simply vanish when your side is no longer in power. Even arguing that "my way is the best way" doesn't really convince people to join you.

If you really want welfare to be a thing that people are happy to support, then you should try some different approaches. As I've said, showing the benefits that the individuals who contribute could capitalize on might be better.

Now, aren't we talking about that best of the four forms of charity?

I wasn't. I don't care which one is the best. I was talking about my personal preferences.

OK, if you are not satisfied with Jewish wisdom and charity (which is unsurpassed) ... . What is your solution?

Just keep paying my taxes and then bitch about it when I want to. I entered this thread to point out that the approach was shitty. I'm not arguing that welfare shouldn't be a thing, or that the govenrment shouldn't be involved.

Clearly we need the system where neither knows the other, which the rabbis already knew was the best form of charity.

This actually makes sense.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithWhoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

I think we can pretty much assume that Cat's claim of seeing a guy selling stacks of Food Stamps is probably not quite accurate. Because if he even had, that was at least 20 years ago. To present a 20 year old anecdote as evidence of anything is ridiculous. I am sure he can not tell us where or when this happened.

I have heard the same or similar anecdote from numerous people that rant about the lowlife people on food stamps. They or a friend have seen people selling food stamps and I ask them when, they all say it was in the last couple years. Then I tell them they or their friend is lying. Then I present the facts about EBT cards. Them stammer and then try to justify themselves or change the story. Basically lying POS's.I have a son on "Food Stamps". He is mentally impaired and has mental illness. He works 20-25 hours per week. More is too much, less is also a recipe for disaster. He gets $12/month in food stamps. Yes $12. If he goes under 20 hours he loses the benefit. Yeah people are getting rich off of them.

People who attack people on assistance can go fuck themselves. Or as my father would say."Go ye forth and fornicate thyself."

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

As an outsider from a country with a great social safety net, it's rather bemusing to read about the US system. Here, if your son could make the case that his impairment precludes him from working, he would receive around $500 a week on the disability pension. I don't know exactly what he would be entitled to while working, but I imagine he would receive part payment depending on his hours. The benefits he would receive certainly wouldn't be denied to him for working less than 20hrs though, at least. Cutting the safety net because you aren't working enough is utterly asinine.

In the interest of full disclosure he does receive about $500/month in Social Security disability. Rent is $650. He makes $10/hr.$620 + $500 = $1120leaves him with $470/month for everything else. Also, he is not allowed to save money. If he has assets of over $2000 he loses his aid. Once you lose aid it is difficult or impossible to get back. There is at least a 6 month period before you will receive it again.Yup he is a dead beat getting rich off of the system.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Yikes, maybe Razz has a heart for the poor and oppressed, maybe there is hope for Razz, maybe Razz saw the light of truth and is attempting to destroy the myths around the 'welfare state' that condescends to the poor, and yet benefits the rich and their monlpolies and tax loop holes and assistances and bail outs of the rich.

WE need to reREAD this thread and discover the truths of the so called welfare state that keeps people poor and keeps people from working, and keeps and benefits basically the rich and the elite.

Maybe 'through research and experience, Razz has some expertise, away from the theories of luck and chance that have given her... insights and truths that can help others have mercy and love on the lowest, who are equal in the eyes of our common Creator.

Lets see !!!

Lets re-OVER what RAZZ has written.

Thanks to the webmasters HERE for allowing me to defeat atheists and evolutionists HERE, and show they have no math, no science backing them up and that they are totally dependant on semantics and luck and chance as their only support for their religion. Thanks again...